Curse

Arduin · Mar 01, 2009, 06:20 PM // 18:20

Hilarious article. Why did Tabula Rasa die? Because people didn't want to pay 15$ a month for a bad game anymore. Why did Age of Conan die? Because people dind't want to pay 15$ for a game that hasn't any Elite content. Why do people still play GuildWars, even after it has become stale? Because it is free.

Quote:

I think that in order for an MMO to succeed and get out from WoWs colossal shadow, developers and publishers must think outside of the box. Maple Story is another happy case. Instead of charging players, Maple adopted the free-to-play and micro-transactions formula and look! They hit it big.

Yeah, because it is free.

WoW can't kill Solitaire, because people don't have to choose between WoW and Solitaire. And Solitaire is free.

How many of you would still play GW if it charged you 15$ a month?

code1101 · Mar 01, 2009, 06:45 PM // 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arduinna

How many of you would still play GW if it charged you 15$ a month?

not me .... this should turned into a poll

Lourens · Mar 01, 2009, 06:47 PM // 18:47

for team play, pvp, scenery, diversity, size of the world

World of Warcraft > Guildwars always

I would never pay 12eu/month for GW for WoW i'm paying 12eu/month nuff said

darkknightkain · Mar 01, 2009, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by fantasyforever

Oh yeah! *high five*

My favorite part was when she said 'Guild Wars does not feel like an MMO and certainly does not feel like a WoW clone.'

That's definitely the best part about GW.
But unfortunately the most scary thing is that GW2, from the official infos about it so far, is precisely trying to abolish the very thing that had made GW1 appealing...

Flinte · Mar 01, 2009, 07:05 PM // 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

More than 50% of the skills in GW are unplayable, though.

now that is completely subjective. Give me any skill and I am sure I could find a use for it...

On topic I have played both and they are completely different games. Those who say that PvE is better in WoW 9 out of 10 are saying that there are more high level areas available... imagine 30 DoA type places. I agree it is nice to do something new instead of the same out elite areas all the time.

Those who say that GW pvp is better say that mostly because its balanced. If you loose a battle there is something YOU did wrong not because your opponent has the sword of 1000 truths.

WolfTwilight · Mar 01, 2009, 07:20 PM // 19:20

I find it funny that people believe that most MMOs are WoW clones but if you looked into it FFXI Online came out in japan before WoW so in reason WoW is a FFXI Online Clone

Pony Slaystation · Mar 01, 2009, 07:23 PM // 19:23

Interesting article. Just thought I should add this, though. Arena Net has said that (at least concerning Guild Wars 2) that they are NOT trying to beat WoW, they just want to make a great game without monthly subscription fees.

shoyon456 · Mar 01, 2009, 07:39 PM // 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pony Slaystation

Interesting article. Just thought I should add this, though. Arena Net has said that (at least concerning Guild Wars 2) that they are NOT trying to beat WoW, they just want to make a great game without monthly subscription fees.

Funny, so a good game has to go to infinite number of levels or at least a very high level cap?

GW proved that you don't need to do what every other MMO is doing to be successful, yet they're contradicting their own success by doing the very things for GW2 that were not in GW1- high level cap, z-axis for simming and jumping, non instanced worlds.

Im not saying high level cap, z-axis movement, and non instanced worlds are not a bad thing. But they're contradicting their own success, and running the danger of doing exactly the same crap as WoW, getting into a pissing contest with them and every other MMO out there. There will be nothing to distinguish GW2 from the competition except for Anet's name on the box.

The test is to see what they do with these gameplay elements, and how they implement them. If they do as expected, it will be a WoW clone with some small differences.

Grj · Mar 01, 2009, 07:47 PM // 19:47

Wow the article states the person got the game "last week" lol

zwei2stein · Mar 01, 2009, 08:32 PM // 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flinte

now that is completely subjective. Give me any skill and I am sure I could find a use for it...

And If it falls withing that 50%, People will point out alternative skill that is better.

But it is not bad thing, really. Players can still build interesting bars.

And WoW has its share of useless skills too ... all that "L1 Firebolt / L2 Firebolt / ..." means that in WoW 4 out of 5 skills are useless. And no "there is use for them". Plain useless.

Improvavel · Mar 01, 2009, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoyon456

Funny, so a good game has to go to infinite number of levels or at least a very high level cap?

GW proved that you don't need to do what every other MMO is doing to be successful, yet they're contradicting their own success by doing the very things for GW2 that were not in GW1- high level cap, z-axis for simming and jumping, non instanced worlds.

Im not saying high level cap, z-axis movement, and non instanced worlds are not a bad thing. But they're contradicting their own success, and running the danger of doing exactly the same crap as WoW, getting into a pissing contest with them and every other MMO out there. There will be nothing to distinguish GW2 from the competition except for Anet's name on the box.

The test is to see what they do with these gameplay elements, and how they implement them. If they do as expected, it will be a WoW clone with some small differences.

The problem is how could they expand GW in a way to generate revenue?

Yet another campaign with 2 professions?
More of the same dungeons and elite areas?
Level 40 and 50 mobs and a plethora of new PvE-only skills to beat them?
Dedicate themselves to PvP, which is undoubtably a smaller player base?

And I'm not sure if Blizzard isn't trying to go for GWs neck.

Just not with WoW but with Diablo III.

Zakarr · Mar 01, 2009, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackie

...WoW is a traditional fantasy roleplaying game with thousands of players together and GW is a more diablo style of game where you got instanced areas for your party alone & then outposts that serve as chat hubs.

Open world sounds nice compared to instanced world, but how WoW player benefit from open world? In my opinion (a bit over 2 years exp with WoW), open world is a hot feature when you are leveling and doing boring daily quests. When you are at maximum level, most time is consumed by visiting instanced areas like dungeons, raids or PvP.

Open world is good only for ganking lowbies and making random useless attacks to the opposing faction cities and afking/dueling. "Thousands of players together" sound nice too, but practically it is like couple ten players together and that is only when you are hanging in main city or making random outdoor raid. I have never experienced this "thousands of players together". In GW, you have access to whole community. With WoW, you have access to a single realm community which is usually only couple ten thousand and most of them are offline anyway.

Sniper22 · Mar 01, 2009, 09:50 PM // 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerwyn Nasilan

"Warrior with a pet?, sweet!"

Lol

Maybe this person knows more about GW than we think :P . We all remember iway don't we?

Yawgmoth · Mar 01, 2009, 10:39 PM // 22:39

Fantastic article on a fantastic gaming site! Posted on News section, so it has to be some hot news :d Oh, and it's the only News in a whole week :lol:

Red Sonya · Mar 01, 2009, 10:48 PM // 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Considering WoW has up to 8 million people paying 15 bucks a month, they don't need to kill GW.

Lol it was 11 million last checked and WOW certainly doesn't have to worry about the meager few 100 thousand still playing GW. GW has sold nearly 6 million COPIES not subscriptions and that makes a big difference. Let's just say if I were going to buy stock in one of the game companies it wouldn't be GW.

Issac · Mar 01, 2009, 11:24 PM // 23:24

Nothing can kill Guild Wars lol.

tooburns · Mar 01, 2009, 11:40 PM // 23:40

i cant support wow graphics

spyke136 · Mar 01, 2009, 11:51 PM // 23:51

wow wins because it has a ridiculously larger amount of content to it, which is the #1 reason I'm playing that now instead of GW and happy to pay the 15$ a month.

you can finish all of GW content in a few days(not in game days, but just a few days in rl) it will take you weeks of actual in game time played to even level all the way let alone "do everything."

obviously i dont expect GW to have as much content for a one time fee. but if you're going to compare two radically different games you have to admit that the game which can keep you busy with new content for years on end is better than one that doesnt.

and if GW did switch to a subscription model, and introduced as much content as WoW does, I would be playing GW in a heart beat. and this of course is what I'm worried about with GW2, that it wont have enough content to compete or be worthwhile.

Arkantos · Mar 02, 2009, 12:01 AM // 00:01

WoW can't kill GW because both are completely different games. The article was pretty bad imo.

Bryant Again · Mar 02, 2009, 12:07 AM // 00:07

Yeup. Both are quite beastly, both are quite worth the cash. It all comes down to what you want in a game.

Of course you can draw similarities, "WoW does such and such better, GW does such and such better", but that further proves the point. Both have made mistakes, but both are still equally awesome.